Received: from localhost (maia-4.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB56C9FC166 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:46:16 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 46205-06 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:46:10 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from 137086.vserver.de (vs137086.vserver.de [62.75.137.86]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 686AB9FC10A for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:46:09 -0300 (ADT) Received: from a-kretschmer.de (p54B3B922.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.179.185.34]) (authenticated bits=0) by 137086.vserver.de (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id l5LIjLLb005791 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 20:45:21 +0200 Received: from kretschmer by a-kretschmer.de with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1I1Rhp-00037u-Ax for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 20:48:33 +0200 Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 20:48:33 +0200 From: Andreas Kretschmer To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Very long SQL strings Message-ID: <20070621184833.GA10814@KanotixBox> References: <357fa7590706211133u2ae43d09id1653ca63d7a7838@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <357fa7590706211133u2ae43d09id1653ca63d7a7838@mail.gmail.com> X-OS: Debian/GNU Linux - weil ich es mir Wert bin! X-GPG-Fingerprint: EE16 3C01 7B9C 10F7 2C8B 3B86 4DB3 D9EE 7F45 84DA X-Message-Flag: "Windows" is not the answer. "Windows" is the question and the answer is "no"! X-Lugdd: Gerd Kube X-Info: My name is root. Just root. And I am licensed to kill -9 User-Agent: mutt-ng 1.5.9i (Linux) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.167 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL=0.031, BAYES_50=0.001, FORGED_RCVD_HELO=0.135 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200706/484 X-Sequence-Number: 25517 Steven Flatt schrieb: > For example, on a toy table with two columns, I noticed about a 20% increase > when bulking together 1000 tuples in one INSERT statement as opposed to doing > 1000 individual INSERTS. Would this be the same for 10000? 100000? Does it > depend on the width of the tuples or the data types? I guess you can obtain the same if you pack all INSERTs into one transaction. And, faster than INSERT: COPY. Andreas -- Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect. (Linus Torvalds) "If I was god, I would recompile penguin with --enable-fly." (unknow) Kaufbach, Saxony, Germany, Europe. N 51.05082°, E 13.56889°